Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:48:04 -0800 From: Will Andrews <will@csociety.org> To: jason andrade <jason@rtfmconsult.com> Cc: Will Andrews <will@csociety.org>, hubs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Poor state of some top-level FTP mirrors Message-ID: <20030310014804.GB57178@procyon.firepipe.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.50.0303101132110.41-100000@luna.rtfmconsult.com> References: <20030309215448.GB30033@dragon.nuxi.com> <Pine.GSO.4.50.0303101116080.41-100000@luna.rtfmconsult.com> <20030310012937.GA57178@procyon.firepipe.net> <Pine.GSO.4.50.0303101132110.41-100000@luna.rtfmconsult.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 11:38:54AM +1000, jason andrade wrote: > their release trees are structured differently. i am not making > a judgement call here (i hear equal amounts of religious statements > on people who love freebsd's package management and other OSes > systems..) so please don't see any of this as my preference. Right, I am not looking for a fight, just technical facts. > o redhat has a package management system that is built into the OS > tree. because the OS tree is quite "static" this lends itself well > to a single fetch and then periodic (but much smaller) updates > via a separate "update" tree. packages that are not released via > the OS are available via a separate "contrib" tree. they have been > less than good about keeping this updated but at least it does > have some theoretical structure for how to add things later. > > o debian has a system which divides the OS and packages into separate > trees via "dist" and "pool". the pool area changes a fair bit but > only certain packages get rebuilt/updated - not the entire poo. > > o a lot of smaller OSes have some combination of the above but again > the main difference from FreeBSD would be that they only rebuild/release > packages that have been updated or have been patched for security > reasons. > > > i am making the assumption (that could well be completely wrong) > that the freebsd package trees are completely rebuilt for each > tree (packages-4-stable/packages-5-current) and architecture at > roughly the same interval (weekly?) necessitating a refetch of > the whole tree - is that correct ? I guess the reason for this is because, theoretically, the build environment could change between builds, or if a package is upgraded, it could affect code for packages that depend on that. We build everything about daily for i386 and less frequently for alpha, sparc64, and powerpc (in that order, I believe). But uploading only occurs when the upload job is run manually, and it usually only happens about once a week or fortnight. I guess what we could do is add some code to portbuild that only builds things that have changed, but still allow for a manual override for complete rebuilds (in case, e.g., we update the base environment used in the builds). This can probably reduce the amount of package building done during each build and possibly allow us to increase the update frequency without drastically increasing the amount of mirroring needed (or just leaving it at weekly updates and cron'ing that). Regards, -- wca To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hubs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030310014804.GB57178>